Why are men more independent than women?

[ThaumaturgicTheorist]

Granted, the whole inspiration for this thread came from a conspiracy lecture, but it's something I've noticed among people in general.

Men are generally more self-sufficient and more supportive of radical freedom, while women tend to be more "statist", and more in favor of policies and organizations that take care of others (while men might take a more hard-nosed, bootstrapping approach). Women seek to be cared for and loved, while men seek to be in control and independent.

The main question: why? It is purely cultural? Or is there some innate reason for it?

 

[entropie]

Because woman always think about companionship. For men that stops with age 30.

 

[Mole]

Granted, the whole inspiration for this thread came from a conspiracy lecture, but it's something I've noticed among people in general.

Men are generally more self-sufficient and more supportive of radical freedom, while women tend to be more "statist", and more in favor of policies and organizations that take care of others (while men might take a more hard-nosed, bootstrapping approach). Women seek to be cared for and loved, while men seek to be in control and independent.

The main question: why? It is purely cultural? Or is there some innate reason for it?

It's not innate, it is cultural.

Men seek to control and dominate women as an expression of their social position.

And worse men's sexuality is combined with control and dominance of women, giving a compulsion as strong as reinforced concrete.

So men want the freedom and the legitimacy to control and dominate women, and women seek to make the best of this by asking for love and care.

And men's prerogative to control and dominate women can always fall back onto domestic violence.

 

[Coriolis]

Granted, the whole inspiration for this thread came from a conspiracy lecture, but it's something I've noticed among people in general.

Men are generally more self-sufficient and more supportive of radical freedom, while women tend to be more "statist", and more in favor of policies and organizations that take care of others (while men might take a more hard-nosed, bootstrapping approach). Women seek to be cared for and loved, while men seek to be in control and independent.

The main question: why? It is purely cultural? Or is there some innate reason for it?

I think it is 95% culture/upbringing. For starters, too many women are still raised with the mindset that they NEED a man - to be complete, to take care of them, to be considered valuable and attractive, etc. Men are still more likely to be raised with the assumption that they must be self-supporting. We still are more likely to criticise a man whose wife supports him, while finding nothing wrong with a woman whose husband supports her, etc. Times are indeed changing, but old habits die hard.

Any innate factors cut both ways. E.g. do women seek to be cared for and loved, or is it in a woman's nature to be caring and loving? Do men want radical freedom, or do they willingly take on the responsibilities of protector and provider?

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

Granted, the whole inspiration for this thread came from a conspiracy lecture, but it's something I've noticed among people in general.

Men are generally more self-sufficient and more supportive of radical freedom, while women tend to be more "statist", and more in favor of policies and organizations that take care of others (while men might take a more hard-nosed, bootstrapping approach). Women seek to be cared for and loved, while men seek to be in control and independent.

The main question: why? It is purely cultural? Or is there some innate reason for it?

Are they more self-sufficient or the role they inhabit = self sufficiency to you? Somewhere there is sacrifice. The role of caretaker is more than self-sufficient. The role of provider, is more than self-sufficient. Which one is valued more monatarily in society now?

How many women and men do you know? Do you know those that break these molds but push them to the side as exceptions?

Just wondering. Because I find when you don't fit the mold you don't get counted in the population.

 

[Yama]

They're not.

 

[Evo]

I think it is 95% culture/upbringing. For starters, too many women are still raised with the mindset that they NEED a man - to be complete, to take care of them, to be considered valuable and attractive, etc. Men are still more likely to be raised with the assumption that they must be self-supporting. We still are more likely to criticize a man whose wife supports him, while finding nothing wrong with a woman whose husband supports her, etc. Times are indeed changing, but old habits die hard.

Any innate factors cut both ways. E.g. do women seek to be cared for and loved, or is it in a woman's nature to be caring and loving? Do men want radical freedom, or do they willingly take on the responsibilities of protector and provider?

This. Plus more that I don't feel like elaborating on at the moment.

 

[nonsequitur]

Men are generally more self-sufficient and more supportive of radical freedom,

They're not. Talk only, lots of posturing and macho nonsense but they seldom get stuff done. When shit gets hard, detailed policy needs to be formed and sacrifices need to be made, they run. Especially if they get no open recognition and there's no chance of being called a hero.

while women tend to be more "statist", and more in favor of policies and organizations that take care of others (while men might take a more hard-nosed, bootstrapping approach). Women seek to be cared for and loved, while men seek to be in control and independent.

There is an expectation that both sexes portray these images. When they betray these expectations, they get punished for it and called names.

I think it is 95% culture/upbringing.

It starts at a young age.

8-Year-Old Girl's Rant About Sexist Clothes At Tesco Is Your Pint-Sized Feminist Hero Of The Week

 

[Crabs]

It starts at a young age.

8-Year-Old Girl's Rant About Sexist Clothes At Tesco Is Your Pint-Sized Feminist Hero Of The Week

I wonder if Daisy wears stretch pants or has any objection to them. They're intended to accentuate the female figure and, consequently, sexualize it. It's appalling that so many parents allow their pre-teen and teenage daughters to wear that sort of attire. I haven't heard many feminists ranting about it though.

 

[nonsequitur]

I wonder if Daisy wears stretch pants or has any objection to them. They're intended to accentuate the female figure and, consequently, sexualize it. It's appalling that so many parents allow their pre-teen and teenage daughters to wear that sort of attire. I haven't heard many feminists ranting about it though.

I love how it's implied that anything meant to show female shape is sexualising? Are sharp suits cut to a male V shape meant to be sexualising?

Also doesn't address the point that young girls and boys get different messages about who they are "supposed" to be.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Are sharp suits cut to a male V shape meant to be sexualising?

Yes.

 

[Crabs]

I love how it's implied that anything meant to show female shape is sexualising? Are sharp suits cut to a male V shape meant to be sexualising?
Also doesn't address the point that young gurls and boys get different messages about who they are "supposed" to be.

If sharp cut suits were skin tight then yes, but they're not. Anything meant to accentuate the human body to that degree (whether male or female) is sexualized in nature. Women just happen to be the ones who wear them en masse...then complain about being sexualized.

If men wore compression pants in public without shorts covering their nether regions, do you honestly think it wouldn't be sexualized?

Sure, boys and girls get different messages about who they're supposed to be. Both could be considered sexist however you choose to look at it.

 

[nonsequitur]

Yes.

If sharp cut suits were skin tight then yes, but they're not. Anything meant to accentuate the human body to that degree (whether male or female) is sexualized in nature. Women just happen to be the ones who wear them en masse...then complain about being sexualized.

If men wore compression pants in public without shorts covering their nether regions, do you honestly think it wouldn't be sexualized?

On little boys?

If we're being specific, the original post was about teens/kids and not women.

Sure, boys and girls get different messages about who they're supposed to be. Both could be considered sexist however you choose to look at it.

We're in agreement then.

By the way, I also think that the sexist social expectations that are imposed on boys/men are very damaging. By no means do I think that males have it easy. The male suicides: how social perfectionism kills | Mosaic

 

[Virtual ghost]

It is mostly cultural but that culture has some foundations in biology. Since only 100 or 200 years ago men had much easier time surviving on their own than women, due to more strength, somewhat better eye/hand coordination as well as emotional independance. On the other hand women are almost immobile when pregnant and before modern medicine and supermarkets they had to be often pregnant in order to make enough children, since good portion of them wouldn't survive to adulthood. What in the end gave birth to traditional cultures as we know them, since back then that was basically the only model that provided meaningful results. However with technological development all this is becoming obsolete.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

They're not. Talk only, lots of posturing and macho nonsense but they seldom get stuff done. When shit gets hard, detailed policy needs to be formed and sacrifices need to be made, they run. Especially if they get no open recognition and there's no chance of being called a hero.

This might be the most generalized sexist comment not based upon reality I have ever read.

 

[nonsequitur]

This might be the most generalized sexist comment not based upon reality I have ever read.

I knew that it'd piss men off. Like the OP was meant to piss women off.

(Actually surprised that it wasn't addressed/quoted earlier..)

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

On little boys?

Sure, in the same puppydog way we do it to girls. "Oh he looks so handsome" "all the little girls are going to be hanging around him now" "He's going to be a ladykiller when he gets to high school/college"


Sure. In that sort of way mothers and grandmothers dote on their little boys. I'm not saying I approve or disapprove, BTW.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

I knew that it'd piss men off. Like the OP was meant to piss women off.

so you admit sexist trolling? interesting.... I wonder if the mod squad will show their unbiased nature and respond in unbiased fashion, or just obvious efforts at pot stirring trolling continue without consequence?

I don't believe the OP was designed to "piss women off". I see why it would, but that does not appear to be the intent.

 

[nonsequitur]

Sure, in the same puppydog way we do it to girls. "Oh he looks so handsome" "all the little girls are going to be hanging around him now" "He's going to be a ladykiller when he gets to high school/college"

Sure. In that sort of way mothers and grandmothers dote on their little boys. I'm not saying I approve or disapprove, BTW.

Is that sexualising though? I don't think that doting/affectionate puppydog-isms are sexual at all. The reference to the future makes it clear that it's not "right now", but when he/she's developed secondary sexual characteristics indicative of maturity. At least, that's the way that I understand it.

[for the record I think whatever the kids wear is between their parents and the kid themselves]

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Is that sexualising though? I don't think that doting/affectionate puppydog-isms are sexual at all. The reference to the future makes it clear that it's not "right now", but when he/she's developed secondary sexual characteristics indicative of maturity. At least, that's the way that I understand it.

[for the record I think whatever the kids wear is between their parents and the kid themselves]

I think of it more as "presexualizing"

I think it's done to girls and boys, yes.